It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the Tea Party split from the GOP?

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Goes well with Fu*ckuppy.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
NO!

Drag the repubs down with them!



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Shdak
 


Your sign gave me an idea. How about merging the Tea Party and the Libertarian party into the "Independent" Party. Since that is where most of America is anyway.

What a shock that would be to the Dems and Reps. Woo Hoo!

The only requirement for the Independent party is that as a candidate you have clearly stated goals and values and must publish them publicly. Then you must adhere as strongly as possible to your pre-election promises and statements or be kicked out of the party if you do not. The Independent party does not have to have a cohesive set of "rules" or policies. The goal being that people can be Independent and run as Independents with independent values, goals and promises, but be held to them in order to gain party support. So within the party candidates can differ in their values, goals and promises, and be truly Independent and let the voters decide. No candidate would be allowed to run without a publicly published outline of their values, goals, and policy positions.

Wow, would that ever be a winner!

I know a lot of you will think this is crazy, however, it is just crazy enough to resonate with fed up Americans.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


How about the constitution party - run Ted Cruz and Col. West.

Run on getting rid of obamacare, TSA, DHS, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, lobbyists, and gov't breaks for large corporations that move jobs overseas (GE, Google, ect.) and lowering income tax, making costs for healthcare taken off of your income before taxing..... I could go on and on..... Import tariffs from China (getting rid of NAFTA).....



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


How about:

The "Independent" Party.

Integrity would be the foundation of the party. The Independent Party member will say what they mean, and mean what they say. They will be respectful of people with differing values, goals and policy positions that are well thought out and are consistent with the American Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and all policy positions must be publicly argued with constitutionally sound arguments.


The only requirement for the Independent party is that as a candidate you have clearly stated goals and values and must publish them publicly. Then you must adhere as strongly as possible to your pre-election promises and statements or be kicked out of the party if you do not.

The Independent party does not have to have a cohesive set of "rules" or policies. The goal being that people can be Independent and run as Independents with independent values, goals and promises, but be held to them in order to gain party support. So within the party candidates can differ in their values, goals and promises, and be truly Independent and let the voters decide.

No candidate would be allowed to run without a publicly published outline of their values, goals, and policy positions. No elected official would be allowed to stay in the party if they blatantly vote against their published positions.

All candidates must sign an integrity pledge that commits them to only voting the way they have stated in their individually published platforms.

The Independent Party, the only party with integrity.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Happy1
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


How about the constitution party - run Ted Cruz and Col. West.

Run on getting rid of obamacare, TSA, DHS, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, lobbyists, and gov't breaks for large corporations that move jobs overseas (GE, Google, ect.) and lowering income tax, making costs for healthcare taken off of your income before taxing..... I could go on and on..... Import tariffs from China (getting rid of NAFTA).....

I still think gradually removing most powers of authority from the bottom up is the long term method for getting back our constitutional republic.

If we can run national and state campaigns, I guess we need a party. I was really hoping we could avoid that but, if it must happen then so be it.

I like the American party (for obvious reasons) as it could potentially include all disenfranchised Americans. The unifying principals have to be minimum government and anti-monopolism.

I anticipate lots of side issue distractions but, if we can stick to individual liberty and actively reducing government. The constitution party, libertarian party, tea party and individualists of all shapes and sizes can unite for such a goal.
edit on 16-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The Op asked the question if the Tea Party should break off and form their own political party. Before we can answer that a bit of a trip through the history of the USA may give a clue and an idea on the answer to that.

The first set of political parties in the USA started after the formation of the country, the Revolutionary war was over, and the country was trying to set itself up. The earliest political parties were: The Federalist party, Jan of 1792, following Hamilton. They came about due to disagreements in the way and direction of the country was going. They opposed President John Adams and backed Thomas Jefferson. They quickly faded away.

The second was the Democratic-Republican Party. Here you have the forerunner of the Democratic party, starting as early as 2/1/1792. They later would shorten the name to the Democratic party, and the standard planks would advocate the more of the growing middle class and ultimately that of individual state’s rights.

The next political party was the Whig party, which was more strongly in favor of a federal grouping of power and was in direct opposition of the Democratic Party. Started in Apr of 1830. The end of this political party was the division over the issue of slavery, which caused it to split and dissolve into other political parties.

April of 1840 saw the formation of the Liberty Party, more of a northern party that was focused on the anti-slavery movement and the annexation of Texas.

Aug of 1848 saw the raise of the Free Soil Party, another anti-slavery party, which supported the abolition cause. They believed that the government should be more involved with internal improvements and handouts. Ended in 1854 when they merged/joined the Republican Party.

Apr of 1850 saw the rise of the American Party. No one knew much about this party, too secretive in nature. However, one of their main planks was the restriction of Immigration and the advocating of Temperance. Dissolved and joined the Republican Party.

Feb of 1854, saw the formation of the Republican Party. There were a more conservative party, and was very successful, going further than either the Whig of the Federalist parties. There were in favor of protective tariffs and minimal government.

Apr of 1869, was the Prohibition Party, care to guess what the main points were: Temperance, banning of all alcohol sales, heavy religion, abortion, and anti-gay laws.

May 1872, saw the rise of the Liberal Republican Party. This party formed to oppose the corruption of the Grant presidency; they wanted to change the policies of the administration. They were also against the Reconstruction that followed the Civil War. They also were one of the first political party to use their minority to dominate the federal government.

Feb 1878, came The Greenback Labor Party. This was the first time that you would see the rise of a political party come about due to the economic conditions of the country, with the backing of the farmers. They were considered a populist movement and were adopted by the progressive movement.

Apr 1891, and we have the Populist Party. This was more for the current activist movements of the way. They did not really represent all of the population, excluding many minorities, including African Americans. They sought to nationalize many industries, including railroads, transportation and communication. They also advocated women’s rights. They were taken over by the Democratic Party.

Aug 1901, and it was the Socialist Party that showed up. They found many successes and were around the country. They would advocate government implementation of business and was supported by the forerunners of the unions.

Apr 1912, and there was the Progressive Party. It was also known as the Bull Moose Party. Formed by Theodore Roosevelt, advocating woman’s’ rights, social welfare, and labor unions. They wanted to modernize through legislation for internal improvements. They ended in 1955.

Sep 1919, and it was the Communist Party. Apart from being an advocate for labor and woman’s rights, they were also for the integration of all citizens, and were against the Jim Crow laws. The main difference between the Communist Party and the Socialist Party was the opposition of the Russian Revolution. The Communist Party supported the revolution.

Jun 1967 saw the rise of the Peace and Freedom Party. This was socialist style party that was formed in direct opposition to the military actions in Vietnam, and military expansion and actions of the country. They also sought racial equality, ecology, women’s rights. They wanted to have a set income for everyone, promoting labor unions and to increase the benefits of the workers. Also seeking to eliminate all nuclear weapons, starting with those in the USA.

Jul 1967 and it was the Independent Party. A large supporter of segregation, even now seeking to improve on civil liberties, protect individual rights, and ultimately curtail the corporate world.

Dec 1971 there was the Libertarian Party. This was to advocate the minimum government, but looking for more of a capitalist economy, non-intervention, and free trade. Against war, and keeping out of hot bed issues that come to the forefront of the country.

Apr 1974 and it is the New Union Party. Having believed that the Socialist were too autocratic, they broke off and started a new political party. The reality is that this is a Marxis-Deleonist Party, believing in the agenda and idea of Karl Marx.

Apr 1991, and the next one is the Taxpayers’ Party. They are a strong party, though going through growing pains, and changing, currently being known as the Constitution Party by 1999. They strongly oppose abortion. They also strongly oppose all armed conflicts without a declaration of war, citing the Constitution of the USA for such. They are also anti-illegal immigrant, finding that the giving of benefits is against the law. They have a bit of an isolationist streak, and think that immigration should be curtailed and reduced down. And that crime should be handled at the local level.

Aug 2001 and it is the Green Party. More in line with the EPA regulations, would seek to promote non-violence and promote a more ecological point of view.

Now you have seen all of the political parties that have come around since the start of the country. While many have good points, at the same time, many had points that were not so tasteful in the public. They all had very good ideas on what to represent in the country, to show that they have the potential to do what is right for the country. Now the question is should the Tea Party, become a new political party. The question should be will the public back and give them the backing that would be required to have a new political party, and be speaking for all those in the country as one people, not just one group or another. If they cannot do that, then they will go the way of those political parties before them. If they can, and be accepting of all, forming a political platform that will appeal to the majority of the country, then they just might have a chance of succeeding.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The Tea Party has one problem though.

Outside influences. Lobbyists.

We need reform.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Regardless I beleive a third party will emerge just like the Whig party that elected Zachary Taylor as President of the United States in 1848 and not to mention Abraham Lincoln who was a member of the Whig party and headed up the Whig party in the State of Illinois. I believe you will see the 3rd party transition and split away from the Republican party in 2014 and will become a strong player giving the old School Republicans fits. ^Y^



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

With all of that said, I don't really know how much either side needs to compromise in order to get the job done. My feeling is that without lobbyism involved, common sense would be allowed to prevail much more often than it is currently and the framework for which our country is founded and ran is extremely solid.

My solution would be to amend the Constitution to prohibit lobbyism completely (legally of course) from politics. Congress should be subject to every law that they pass without exception and finally, we get back too and don't stray again from the Constitution being the supreme law and framework that we base our society and government on.

These are actually very simple things however, I don't think they are things we will see in our lifetime without some serious changes from the top down and that's going to require things get worse before they get better and............ I have no doubt they will.

The simplest way to rid American politics of lobbying is to remove the Federal Government's power over whatever is being lobbied for. Leave lobbyists with nothing to buy.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I prefer a hostile takeover of the GOP, myself. But honestly, it may be a moot question anyway. The "Tea Party" is not a cohesive group, theres no centralized structure. It will do what it will do.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

IAMTAT
reply to post by beezzer
 

I don't think they should split...The Republican party is in desperate need, not only of a backbone, but ideological leaders who can voice the desires and will of the majority of the American people.

I see the TP as the primordial soup of new Republican leadership in this country. They provide a new dynamic to the lackadaisical Republican party.


I'll agree with you on the TP as being primordial soup - in that they're pretty far behind on intellectual evolution.

I also think the TP should break off from the GOP as for a group that seems to want to champion individual responsibility and not suckling off the government, they're doing a great job of being hypocrites by suckling off of the GOP.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


That's the whole purpose. It was to infiltrate the GOP and change the wallstreet backed establishment GOP.

Wallstreet infiltrated both parties. Now, it's the people's turn to infiltrate them. I'm hoping maybe the green party can infiltrate the democrat party. It's the only way to get airtime.
edit on 16-10-2013 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The Tea Party is slowly turning into the ugly step-sister of the two parties.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
They should split. A true third party that really does differ from the standard GOP would be a good thing. The only thing that can cure American politics is a third and fourth party coming strongly onto the scene. There is enough name recognition to make some serious change. I'm not an overall Tea Party fan, by no means, but any third party at this point would be a good thing. It needs to happen. If Michelle Bachmann is electable as a republican, why wouldn't she be electable as a third party candidate. The same people would vote for her. A strong third party would then pave the way for other parties to emerge.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

amazing
If Michelle Bachmann is electable as a republican, why wouldn't she be electable as a third party candidate. The same people would vote for her. A strong third party would then pave the way for other parties to emerge.


So let me see if I got this straight. You want a third party that would elect Republicans like Michelle Bachmann?

Why not just stay with the GOP and elect Michelle; no need for a 3rd party to do that.

BTW....there is a 3rd party that really does differ from the GOP...the Libertarians, and we think that Michelle Bachmann is the perfect spokesperson for the GOP.
edit on 16-10-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


Boy you said it,... a Federal Government is just an exaggerated version of a corrupt state government...

Why not keep the corruption local... at least then you could conceivably stamp down the seeds more quickly and efficiently,...
The old west almost had it right as far as reducing corruption on a local level...then the Industrial Revolution happened,... and we had to essentially start over... and here we are...

Great...



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   


ideological leaders who can voice the desires and will of the majority of the American people


If you think the majority of America loves the Tea Party you're crazy. Only 40% of Americans call themselves conservatives, and not all of them support the Tea party, so it's maybe 20%. Why can't you Republicans do math??



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
The Tea Party should absolutely split. I despise them and view them as little more than political terrorists based on their actions and ideology and criminally ignorant of how things function at a national level (though this is true for about 98% of the country I expect better of those that are in office) however they're relatively popular and at the end of the day I'm in favor of absolutely anything that weakens the two party system. I would even donate and volunteer to work on their campaigns and to promote an alternative to R vs D.


beezzer
Compromise is fine. But when you have to sacrifice principles in order to enact compromise, then it isn't compromise anymore.

It's surrender.


Compromise without being willing to bend your principals isn't compromise. Compromise is successful when both sides walk away unhappy and feel like they gave up more than they should have.


Wrabbit2000
(raises paw) If I may interject a thought?

It's my understanding that The Tea Party Movement is very similar to Occupy in ONE respect. They are decentralized for any national 'command' structure that everyone will adhere to and follow.

How does one form a party with this time left...and even hope to appear on Statewide ballots, let alone have any chance of even attempting national ballot access to the White House in 2016?

I'm serious and I don't know this area well enough to say, nor do I have the machine or time now to research it. Anyone else know off hand if they developed the structure over the last couple years to stand vs. crawling in many directions at once?


Don't aim for the white house as your parties first major office. Build up a base in congress and state legislatures. Maybe even have someone win as a Governor. Holding the oval office isn't what's important, what is important is getting people onto the national stage where they can argue their ideas, and pass legislation that shows them to be a valid party that will improve the country (or not). Only by doing that can you weaken the stranglehold on the presidency and get someone into office. Any presidential run before that is merely symbolic, it has no shot at winning.

Above all, don't try to be a big tent party. This is what has killed Republicans and Democrats and is what is killing the Tea Party. When the TP was simply about financial responsibility (just like Occupy) they were extremely popular. I believe that's a message that resonates well and is something they should focus on. They can put forward their solutions and leave their stances on other things out of it. A party shouldn't be all things to all people. They should have areas of expertise and focus on those areas, that way when a problem pops up they can be elected, do their jobs by fixing the issues they actually understand, and then get out. Much like in other countries that have several parties.
edit on 17-10-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Shdak
Most American people fall in the middle; anyone that is willing to compromise a little with both Rep's & Dem's I would consider being an Independent.


There can be no compromise with socialist-fascists who care nothing for the Constitutional rule of law.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join